Games with Gold Titles Revealed for December 2018

He's saying your argument can easily be made in support of the point your arguing against. If an argument can be used to support either point, then it's a poor argument.

But it can't at all. I said Person 2 was factually wrong.

And at what point does the {#}historical data{#} reflect that GwG has been available for 5 years? It's nonsense that because a subscription adds a new feature that the price only applies to the original features. The new feature is part of the service that people pay for, just because it wasn't there before doesn't make it free.

Until a more precise metric is made available by Microsoft. It is impracticable to determine the cost of GwG as Microsoft does not provide an itemized invoice. So we look back at historical data to see how price fluctuated when the feature was added. As the price did not increase, we do not have any data to determine a price point for GwG.

Your arguments are theoretical in nature. Everyone else is making practical arguments. That's why there is a disconnect here.

What exactly is theoretical about having to pay for Gold?

It doesn't matter what fraction of the payment is towards GwG. It could be 1 cent, it could be 30 dollars. It's paid, therefore it's not free.

You misunderstand my statement. The following link has a pretty good explanation of theory vs. practice.

Posted on 05 December 18 at 16:43, Edited on 05 December 18 at 16:43 by BetaSigX20

So, when I go to a restaurant, I can get free refills on my soda. I usually only drink one soda during the course of a meal, while my friend could drink three or more. Both drinks cost us $1.29 on the bill, but for the same $1.29, my friend had three drinks, while I only had one.

There are several ways to interpret this:1. We both paid for one drink, and my friend got two "free" extra drinks.2. I paid $1.29 for my drink, and my friend got three drinks @ $0.43 each (better value for the money, if still not "free").3. My friend has fallen victim to a marketing scam that makes him think he got a better value than he did, and I should spend the rest of the meal warning him that he's being taken in by false advertising and unethical corporate greed.

You can unless by getting it free you mean in exchange for hours of time earning Microsoft Rewards points which you could have otherwise spent on games directly. Otherwise no

The whole premise of what the two of you have been arguing gets intriguing in this last comment. The more appropriate philosophical discussion would be whether or not anything is ever free. If you take this example you've provided, the answer would be no as everything requires some form of time or money (or both) to claim.

Someone handing out free food down the road isn't free if you have to use time going to pick up the food that could have been spent working somewhere for pay... etc.

I still stand by the fact that the examples presented on why its "not free" actually end up proving that PC online gaming isn't free since you have to pay for the internet.

I still stand by the fact that the examples presented on why its "not free" actually end up proving that PC online gaming isn't free since you have to pay for the internet.

It magically doesn't count for them on this example.

Another example used, electricity, is a bit extreme. To think a person will purchase electricity service to power up the Xbox. Possible, but unlikely.But for the internet there are examples here on this site. People talk about their metered internet connections and how they can't download large games. Some people probably got a better internet like a home service (in case they only used mobile before) for the Xbox. Possible and likely.

The games are free. It's a strategy to keep the paid subscriber, not a product they are selling.They probably also take into account that maintaining paid subscribers on Xbox Live, a fraction of these will not subscribe to paid services on other platforms, like the sony playstation whatever-live.For example the battle over the TV entertainment by the channels and cable TV providers against Netflix is clear. They offered apps to access content in many devices in the last years. They are not selling that. They are clearly positioning themselves against netflix subscriptions. Because several people cancelled their old subscriptions for netflix.

You can unless by getting it free you mean in exchange for hours of time earning Microsoft Rewards points which you could have otherwise spent on games directly. Otherwise no

The whole premise of what the two of you have been arguing gets intriguing in this last comment. The more appropriate philosophical discussion would be whether or not anything is ever free. If you take this example you've provided, the answer would be no as everything requires some form of time or money (or both) to claim.

Someone handing out free food down the road isn't free if you have to use time going to pick up the food that could have been spent working somewhere for pay... etc.

I still stand by the fact that the examples presented on why its {#}not free{#} actually end up proving that PC online gaming isn't free since you have to pay for the internet.

That would only be true if my ISP was the company which provided the online gaming.

You can unless by getting it free you mean in exchange for hours of time earning Microsoft Rewards points which you could have otherwise spent on games directly. Otherwise no

The whole premise of what the two of you have been arguing gets intriguing in this last comment. The more appropriate philosophical discussion would be whether or not anything is ever free. If you take this example you've provided, the answer would be no as everything requires some form of time or money (or both) to claim.

Someone handing out free food down the road isn't free if you have to use time going to pick up the food that could have been spent working somewhere for pay... etc.

I still stand by the fact that the examples presented on why its {#}not free{#} actually end up proving that PC online gaming isn't free since you have to pay for the internet.

That would only be true if my ISP was the company which provided the online gaming.

Just because the profit from something you've purchased covers extras that come with it, doesn't mean you paid for those extras. You covered the costs of those extras, but that doesn't mean you paid for them. That's the crossover that's happening here and causing arguments to talk past each other.

"Just because you paid for something doesn't mean it cost you"

Fixed to actually exemplify what I said. And if it didn't cost you, by definition, is that not free? If what, what definition do you use?

Something else needs clarifying here, when EXACTLY does money stop being yours? If I spend money somewhere, and that business uses that money, is it my money that paid for it? If they pay an employee with it, did I pay that employee? If that employee buys a gun and shoots somebody, did I pay for that? For the majority of us, it seems it's not ours the instant you pass it over to the company.

Whether they spend that money on giving something back, or on their new Ferrari, doesn't make a difference. It's not our money at that point.

He's saying your argument can easily be made in support of the point your arguing against. If an argument can be used to support either point, then it's a poor argument.

But it can't at all. I said Person 2 was factually wrong.

And at what point does the {#}historical data{#} reflect that GwG has been available for 5 years? It's nonsense that because a subscription adds a new feature that the price only applies to the original features. The new feature is part of the service that people pay for, just because it wasn't there before doesn't make it free.

Until a more precise metric is made available by Microsoft. It is impracticable to determine the cost of GwG as Microsoft does not provide an itemized invoice. So we look back at historical data to see how price fluctuated when the feature was added. As the price did not increase, we do not have any data to determine a price point for GwG.

Your arguments are theoretical in nature. Everyone else is making practical arguments. That's why there is a disconnect here.

What exactly is theoretical about having to pay for Gold?

It doesn't matter what fraction of the payment is towards GwG. It could be 1 cent, it could be 30 dollars. It's paid, therefore it's not free.

You misunderstand my statement. The following link has a pretty good explanation of theory vs. practice.

You can unless by getting it free you mean in exchange for hours of time earning Microsoft Rewards points which you could have otherwise spent on games directly. Otherwise no

The whole premise of what the two of you have been arguing gets intriguing in this last comment. The more appropriate philosophical discussion would be whether or not anything is ever free. If you take this example you've provided, the answer would be no as everything requires some form of time or money (or both) to claim.

Someone handing out free food down the road isn't free if you have to use time going to pick up the food that could have been spent working somewhere for pay... etc.

I still stand by the fact that the examples presented on why its {#}not free{#} actually end up proving that PC online gaming isn't free since you have to pay for the internet.

That would only be true if my ISP was the company which provided the online gaming.

It would, to someone who can't understand the difference. If Microsoft decided to use the profit from Gold to build a bridge I would then drive across every day, you could argue that I paid for it, but it wouldn't have cost me. It cost Microsoft. It wasn't my money at that point, it's Microsoft's. If they use their money to give something to you that you haven't specifically paid for, it hasn't cost you, and is free to you. Why do you think it's still your money once you've given it over? Or, as it appears you think this way, why is it still your money if its use affects you?

It would, to someone who can't understand the difference. If Microsoft decided to use the profit from Gold to build a bridge I would then drive across every day, you could argue that I paid for it, but it wouldn't have cost me. It cost Microsoft. It wasn't my money at that point, it's Microsoft's. If they use their money to give something to you that you haven't specifically paid for, it hasn't cost you, and is free to you. Why do you think it's still your money once you've given it over? Or, as it appears you think this way, why is it still your money if its use affects you?

"If you give someone money and they give something to you, it's free"

Try actually listening to what you're saying You're trying to make some imaginary division between paying for Gold and getting GwG. It's called GAMES WITH GOLD, man. It's part of the service, end of discussion.

Posted on 06 December 18 at 00:37, Edited on 06 December 18 at 00:40 by Elyoh

So if they changed the name, you'd happily consider them free?

Your ability to so poorly summarize my statements display that you're still talking past me. If you something extra and above what you paid for, then that's free, in terms of what it cost you. If we're talking costs here.

Your ability to so poorly summarize my statements display that you're still talking past me. If you something extra and above what you paid for, then that's free, in terms of what it cost you. If we're talking costs here.

Of course not. I'm pointing out how the title of the program blatantly shows how it's a direct benefit from Gold, not something apart from it like people in this thread like to claim.

It's not extra. It's not above what I paid for. It's part of the Gold service. And it's not free, because Gold costs money.

I imagine this is just a difference in the terms paid and cost. It wouldn't necessarily be wrong to state you've paid for GwG. Just as it wouldn't be wrong to start that GwG cost you nothing, both can be true at the same time.

I imagine this is just a difference in the terms paid and cost. It wouldn't necessarily be wrong to state you've paid for GwG. Just as it wouldn't be wrong to start that GwG cost you nothing, both can be true at the same time.

No they can't, because you need Gold to get Games with Gold and Gold costs money.